A frontline that's greater than the distance from Sydney to Melbourne might appear to offer plenty of opportunities to punch through stretched Russian defences. The problem is the coming assault must be aimed at recovering territory in the south and there the grain of the road network runs east-west, along the Black Sea coast. So while Kyiv's obvious preference is to push south, there is only one place such an attack can easily be developed, with a swift offensive from Volnovakha to Mariupol. The trouble is that slashing through here would require concentrating Kyiv's 18 (plus) mechanised brigades; striking to the coast; and cutting off the Russian forces in Crimea.

But Moscow knows this. That's why it's heavily reinforced its defences in an attempt to bog down any offensive. Kyiv needs success soon - it can't afford for the war to drag on. Weapons aren't the real problem: the key issue is that Ukraine doesn't have enough troops.

Back in May 1943, German panzers were similarly poised to attack Russian forces defending a bulge around Kursk. But instead of charging as soon as the spring thaw arrived. the Nazis waited to build up their strength before striking in July. Moscow used this time to reinforce its line, just as it's doing today. Finally, in what remains the greatest-ever tank battle of all time, Berlin's armour attacked so hard that both sides' tanks were physically smashing into each another. It wasn't enough. By the time the bitter fight was over the elite of the German forces had been broken. Russia's forces were simply too strong. Their defences absorbed and held the powerful assault.

Vladimir Putin is hoping to achieve exactly the same now. That's why he's annexed the four Ukrainian provinces. Now, if Putin chooses he can 'defend' them by using tactical nuclear weapons. By using one of these Putin would be signalling he will not accept defeat. And what happens then? Does Ukraine back down? And would the West continue supporting Vladimir Zelensky, no matter how objectionable it finds Putin?

The US wants Ukraine free, but it doesn't want a nuclear war. This is the key to understanding how this conflict will play out. Different nations always have different bottom lines and there will always be limits to how much any country will support an ally.

Although the side with the biggest arsenal usually wins, military superiority doesn't guarantee victory. Other factors are far more important in deciding how wars end - just look at what happened in Afghanistan.

This is a lesson Canberra seemingly hasn't processed. Defence Minister Richard Marles is doing a very good impression of somebody who's completely swallowed everything the top-brasses have told him. Marles appears obsessed with the latest weaponry and its capacity to project focused violence. But while great weapons might win battles; they don't win wars. That was the lesson of Afghanistan, which is just one of the latest wars this country has lost.

When the Taliban advanced to Uruzgan the Afghan kandaks that we had spent so long training and supporting immediately rushed to remove their insignia and resume wearing their traditional robes. Canberra's decision to get involved in that disaster meant that (along with many hundreds of locals) 41 Australians died and, as we will soon hear, detailed allegations of our forces committing war crimes. Something is very wrong with the system, yet we are told these were the actions of rogue soldiers and nothing needs to be done to cleanse the military.

Rubbish.

For 20 years this column has engaged in peripatetic examination of the way we defend this country. US President Eisenhower, himself a former 5-star general, warned about the emergence of a huge military/industrial complex in his farewell address as he departed the White House back in 1961. Today Australia, too, is consumed by the idea that victory can be somehow guaranteed by spending more on the forces. Wrap-around features make money for newspapers but simply add to the dissonance between symbolism and objectives.

Force is just as - and certainly no more - effective than a blunt stick. No matter how vicious the weapon, it won't change somebody's mind. Words and ideas are far more effective strategic tools. These act to shape the way we think. This is the most decisive dimension of conflict, because it decides which side will be successful.

MORE NICHOLAS STUART:

Even simple constructs are vital. How many times, for example, do you hear the word 'Quad' used as if it is real. It's not. No treaties bind India, Japan, the US and Australia because each country has its own interests. Narendra Modi is a Hindu fundamentalist who's buying everything Russia wants to sell and is just attempting to secure our support to pressure China. Meanwhile President Joe Biden tossed Anthony Albanese overboard the minute a visit to Sydney conflicted with his own priorities. Adding insult to injury he told Canberra to say he was coming just hours before he cancelled, Why? So he can use abandoning the trip as a political weapon against his Republican opponents who are blocking supply. And Albanese's embarrassment? Well, unfortunate but irrelevant to the US President. He has other fish to fry.

READ MORE: Albanese, Biden sign climate agreement on G7 sidelines

And this is the point. In the past two decades we have lost our ability to influence our neighbourhood as we've been attempting to grandstand on the world stage. There are plenty of insuperable issues here in the Pacific without worrying about picking fights with China. Instead of wasting money on frigates Australia would be far better served by sending more personnel overseas to assist nearby countries with their security and development. The need to build relationships to avoid conflict is far more important than the need to build submarines (that are destined to be obsolete almost as soon as they come of the slipway).

There is an urgent need to refocus our defence but instead this country is doubling down on the path to being America's best ally. Real security doesn't come from massive militaries - it comes from engagement.